Waiting for location permission...

Win or lose, sitting down and playing a game against someone is fun. Until you run into that control matchup, then it doesn't really matter what happens in the game, win or lose, because immediately I start to hate life because I know it's just going to drag out regardless. At FNM, you get 50 minutes to play a round and rarely do you finish 2 games in that time frame let alone a best of 3 series. So, now they've made it more difficult for me to place at FNM or win prizes.... not because they beat me, but because they wasted our time and we accomplished nothing. Even when I play online (not MTGO so there isn't a turn clock) best of 3 series are rarely finished in less than 50 minutes. And it's all because my opponents deck is designed to just make the game go as long as humanly possible so that they can "EVENTUALLY" find a win condition. The whole concept of their deck is to create a situation where it becomes a one player game of magic. Cards have been banned in every format for creating decks that do this because it fundamentally goes against what Magic is trying to do, but yet here is a whole archetype set out to accomplish that one goal. As soon as I see my opponent is playing control all I can think is, wow, this person must not have any friends. And that the only reason they're playing control is because they figure they can force people to sit across from them for a longer time since it's the only human interaction they get in their life. I understand the argument that aggro, midrange, and control all balance each other, but it still doesn't change the fact that when I see my opponent is playing control I know I'm stuck there (win or lose) for an extra 20-30 mins longer than I would be in any other game and that there is a good chance we only finish one or two games. So a best of 3 series becomes a 1 game winner take all or a draw. The thing is, regardless of what they tell you, there is no way the games are fun for the guy playing control either. The games last 50 mins and 30 mins of that time is literally spent with both players accomplishing absolutely nothing. Anyone who tells you they think that is fun, is lying. Sitting there with their hands folded and their eyes closed would accomplish nothing as well and they don't spend all their free time doing that..... not because it would be too much fun for them to handle... but because getting nowhere and accomplishing nothing is inherently boring and no fun. Just once I'd like to go to FNM or get online to play and not feel like half my time was wasted because someone was lonely so they played control so they could force the games to go excessively long. Basically, control makes me hate magic. I'd rather not play the game at all then build my deck as a counter against control and still be stuck in a worthless game for 50+ mins because it's likely we'll still not be able to finish the best of 3 series.

As a person who likes control and thinks control is necessary or midrange would run rampant, suck it up (I say that in the most pleasant manner possible). Maybe you should know there are control decks in meta's and should be able to combat them with sideboard cards or more efficient spells, or better decision making and timing. I personally find playing control and against control (even if I'm not playing control myself) is a much better match than a midrange mirror. You must not have been around in the Mastery of the Unseen days where a game would stall out and culminate to one big attack or someone got decked (library was empty).

January 27, 2018
2:19 p.m.

To start, you really should not make generalizations about individuals. Take the following statement:

Hyper-aggro players must not have any friends. There is only one reason a player would want to instantaneously win the game--clearly they are so socially inept that they seek to minimize their societal interactions.

That's an absurd statement, and exactly as valid as the claims you have made.

Moving on, let's talk about why I enjoy control--here's a hit, it has nothing to do with making other player's miserable, nor forcing human interaction. That would be counter-productive--I generally do not have the time to play at my LGS, so the vast majority of my play is casually with friends.

(1) I enjoy designing unusual decks, that win through rarely seen combos or alternate win conditions. Control is a necessary part of those decks--these decks tend to be a bit on the slow side, as they rely on inefficient cards.

(2) I find control to be more enjoyable to play. There are numerous decisions to be made--do I make the block and risk one of my combo pieces? Do I counter their 3-drop, and risk not having a counter for their 4-drop? Do I skip playing a land so my opponent thinks I have a hand full of counterspells?

Further, I enjoy building a control deck more than aggro. Because you move a bit slower, you can really explore interesting interactions between cards. A good control deck feels like a work of art--a well oiled machine, where every piece adds to the greater whole.

Hyper-fast decks do not have the same appeal to me. I have legacy decks which consistently win n the first turn. While I enjoy the artistry of these decks, and their savage brutality, they are not enjoyable to play. I either win, or they have more Force of Wills in their hand, and they win on their play.

(3) Most of my friends are Johnnies. They also enjoy building interesting decks. My playing control actually makes things more fun for them, as it slows down the game, and gives them opportunity to assemble their combos. Yes, I would win more consistently if I showered them with Goblin Guides, but where is the fun in that?

January 27, 2018
3:31 p.m.

I think you guys should read what I wrote better. You both try to make arguments against things I never disputed. Like for example, making generalizations. I never said it's a fact that control players have no friends. I simply said that as soon as I see they're playing control that I think, wow this person must not have friends. It's just my opinion and what pops into my head the second I see that the goal they're trying to accomplish is to delay the game as long as possible. Why do they want the game to last so much longer than every other game or matchup..... in my opinion, because no one would sit across from them for 50+ mins unless they were being forced to because of the game.

And UpperDeckerTaco you were so eager to tell me to "suck it up" that your entire response makes no sense if you actually read what I wrote. First off, I said I understand that aggro, midrange, and control all balance each other, so telling me control keeps midrange decks in check is like repeating what I already said. So I guess, thanks for confirming what I said. Secondly, it's not about wins or losses, it's a game and you can't win them all. I don't have a problem with losing so telling me to cast more efficient spells or make better decisions or have better timing is irrelevant because none of those things actually combat what I think the problem with control is. Third, it's not about having sideboard options, because as I stated I'd rather not play at all, then have a deck designed to specifically combat control and still have to waste so much time for no reason other than their deck is trying to make the game as long as possible. Which brings me to the point I made several times originally... win or lose, I hate control because the whole purpose of it is to make the game last as long as humanly possible. Not because it needs to last that long, but because that's what they chose to build their deck to do. Which only makes matters worse when in a competitive or semi competitive environment like FNM because you're under a time restriction. It negates the purpose of a best of 3 series when your opponent is playing a deck that can barely finish one game in that time frame let alone a second or even potentially a 3rd. Also, I did play when Mastery of the Unseen was standard legal. You make it sound like games regularly lasted 30+ turns and people were losing to drawing from an empty library on a consistent basis. We all know that never happened, so pretending it did makes zero sense. Not to mention, you're arguing that you like control more because midrange mirrors can create stalled board stats and long games. That's literally the exact situation every control deck is trying to accomplish. They're trying to create a stalled board state and draw the game out as long as possible because they run a minimal amount of win conditions and they need the time to find it and to created a stalled position where their win condition can be protected. Not only is it like you ignored everything I said, but you even contradict yourself as well... did you really expect to be taken seriously with a response like that?

January 27, 2018
4:44 p.m.

To dispute...you are ignorant if you think a control versus midrange match is similar to midrange vs midrange match...you claim that control aims to prolong the game...that is not the case with control. We simply try to survive until we can win. With the limited amount of threats in a control deck, and a full density full of threats in a non control deck, we have to be prepared for every top deck and play you have. Decisions have to be made. Therefore I can tell you are most def not a control player. Once a control player has "control" of the game, he/she would want to win as fast as possible to ensure victory. Either you're playing against bad control players, or just straight up dicks. And once a control player has control of the game, it's pretty easy for them to turn the switch and win. If they don't, they either misplayed, built their deck wrong for too inconsistent of plays, or are just plain dumb. Even a prolonged game by control is more interactive on both sides rather than 2 midrange decks playing at parody and just passing the turn after playing a creature or two, unable to attack because the opponent has the same board set up.

January 27, 2018
5:10 p.m.

HAHA, again, trying to dispute something I never argued. When did I ever say anything about control versus midrange match being the same as midrange vs midrange. Why do you have to make assumptions about things I don't even speak of just so you have something to argue. Wouldn't it just be easier to read what I actually say instead of guessing and trying to make it up as you go along? At least if you did that then your responses might actually make some sense. To say a control player can instantly turn the corner on a game once they have "control" is just making more assumptions. Namely, that they have their win condition in hand the second they have gained "control". Quit assuming things and use facts when you're trying to argue something. I'm embarrassed for you, I can't imagine how dumb you must really feel.

January 27, 2018
5:20 p.m.

(a) The action or process of forming or expressing a general concept or proposition on the basis of inference from particular instances.

(b) A concept or proposition arising from this process; a general conclusion or inference; (with negative connotation) an excessively broad or general statement based on limited or inadequate evidence; an overgeneralization.

Now, let us analyze your statements:

(1) You have come to a general conclusion, and make a general inference each and every time you play against control. In your mind, your stereotype about control players is such a forgone conclusion that it is the first thing you think when you see a control deck.

(2) This is an excessively broad statement, for which you have extremely limited and inadequate evidence to prove. You are basing your assumption merely on what type of Magic deck someone is playing, and you have no direct evidence showing that control players tend to be friendless.

To the contrary, I have submitted several reasons why someone might wish to play control. Rather than accept you might be wrong in your fundamental assumptions, you have decided to aggressively double-down on your prior statement, purposefully disengage with information which spoke against you, and offer an ill-concocted defense that the premier source of English definitions easily disproves.

January 28, 2018
12:11 a.m.

January 30, 2018
12:19 p.m.

OP seems to not understand that different people like different archetypes and that asking people with a deck that is good against his not to face him is immature and rude. Some decks counter control hard. Others don't. Don't be a baby about losing.

January 30, 2018
10:54 p.m.

February 26, 2018
4:23 p.m.

abenz419 in addition to your (quite rude, as it seemed to me) generalization about control players everywhere, you also do not seem to understand that there are many different kinds of control decks. The idea behind a control deck is not to make the game last long, but to assemble everything they need so that they can win without dispute from the adversary. Piloting a control deck is significantly more difficult than playing an aggro or midrange strategy. The only control deck that can make games be so long that you get bored at the moment, as far as I know, is some variant of Drake Haven control, and that,s in a mirror match. If you want to whine about decks that make games last an eternity, you should be looking at token/ tarpit decks. Those, I do not stand.

March 4, 2018
3:38 a.m.

Argy that's true. My comment was a bit generalizing too. However, since I like playing control, I didn't much like the fact that he was basically calling me an antisocial person who has no friends. I don't appreciate that.

March 4, 2018
11:23 a.m.

Agusdakilla yeah OP was really rude regardless of their points. I understand the reasoning that makes using or playing against control less fun but the way OP said that and put down those who disagreed is shameful.

March 4, 2018
2:20 p.m.

Well, I don't usually jump in to this type of discussion, but since the majority of the comments are unreasonably rude, I guess I'll try to contribute to an actual discussion:

To get my bias out of the way, I'm a lifetime control player, for more than like 6 years now (I stopped keeping count). Yes, I have friends. Yes, I do value my time. Why do I play control? Because I don't like attacking with creatures (it gets boring, too much combat math, etc.), and find more interest in noncreature spells.

So why do most control matches suck? Inexperience, honestly. Usually on both sides, but it's mostly control player inexperience. abenz419 mentioned not finishing 3rd games, and sometimes even 2nd games -- this isn't typical for experienced control players. I can play 3 games faster than many of the other matches in the room have even finished and have time to trade in between matches. The issue is when the control player doesn't know what to do each turn and tanks over every single decision. It can also be that the opponent is slow playing -- when you're the control player making 10 second decisions while your opponent thinks for a minute every turn when they've only drawn one card to change the game state, it gets annoying.

As a tip, if you find yourself drawing a card every turn, realizing it does nothing, and wishing the game was over -- just concede. You don't have to play the game to the end to know when enough is enough. Likewise, make sure you let your opponent know when they need to play faster.

And as a side note, it may seem like a control opponent has all of the answers and runs on autopilot once stabilized, but in reality every single micro-decision you make can completely ruin or win the game for you at almost any point (especially in Modern). Every single card has to be allocated to the right threat in the right order to get you to winning, and a slight misstep has caused me to lose many a game. So "sitting there doing nothing" may feel like nobody's actually playing a game, but your threat sequencing and the control player's allocation of answers is a very important subgame to play.

March 15, 2018
1:33 a.m.

Magic the Gathering, FNM is TM and copyright Wizards of the Coast, Inc, a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc. All rights reserved. This site is unaffiliated. Articles and comments are user-submitted and do not represent official endorsements of this site.